I normally do not even read Stubborn's posts and I just proved to myself again why:
the lying hypocrite that he is
Can you see the intellectual prowess oozing from his pores? This really helps settle the issue doesn't it?
rejects the authoritative decree of Vatican 1
There you have it. He said it so it must be true. Quote the treatise by Stubborn substantiating his claims from verifiable sources while discussing the issue with his typical cogent, logical and precise reasoning.
Very rich indeed.
Say what you want, but one thing you'll never say, is anything in defense of the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - and you never have and you never will as long as you preach they are not an absolute necessity - while you yourself presumably partake of them every week, this is hypocrisy.
You just keep trumpeting the same modernist teachings, invoking the names of great saints in your attempt to support your heresy of preaching the reception of the sacrament is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation.
I understand the necessity of the sacraments for salvation as the Church does. You don't.
Not true. You preach that you understand the sacrament to be optional, in direct contradiction of what the Church teaches.
If what you say were the truth, you would be able to defend the sacraments as the Church defends them, not continually promote that without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, salvation through faith alone - this is not Church teaching, Trent anathematizes that teaching.
The biggest fraud perpetrated against the faith is the modernist teaching that says: "You must understand dogma as the Church Herself understand it" - - - - then they proceed to reduce dogma to a meaningless formula.
Per the First Vatican Council, the Church Herself understands the meaning "as once declared", not as explained by the likes of Fenton.